Welcome to the PokéCommunity!

Hi there! Thanks for visiting PokéCommunity. We’re a group of Pokémon fans dedicated to providing the best place on the Internet for discussing ideas and sharing fan-made content. Welcome! We’re glad you’re here.

In order to join our community we need you to create an account with us. Doing so will allow you to make posts, submit and view fan art and fan fiction, download fan-made games, and much more. It’s quick and easy; just click here and follow the instructions.

We’re on social media!

The Round TableHave a seat at the Round Table for in-depth discussions, extended or serious conversations, and current events. From world news to talks on life, growing up, relationships, and issues in society, this is the place to be.
Come be a knight.

After seeing some abhorrent stuff littered across Facebook regarding the cruelty toward animals, the curiosity of wanting to know what you guys thought about it suddenly occurred me.

More importantly, what's your opinions on animal cruelty? In your state/country what punishments (if any) are put in place to bring justice to those who abuse animals? Do you think it's strict enough? Too strict?

For me, animal cruelty is one of the worst crimes one can commit, alongside that of murder and sexual abuse of children. In my eyes, all who mistreat, whether physically or emotionally, and torment animals need to be punished swiftly and severely. In Victoria a maximum 2 years jail can be issued as well as fines ranging from $29,000 to $146,000.

I find this punishement a little too easy. I'd be more than elated to see animal abusers spend a good 5+ years in jail. Accompanied by relatively similar fines, and at least some form of community work.

I hate hate hate it. People should not abuse animals. Animals can't often help their behaviors it's just how they are. I think if people dont like animals enough to abuse/neglect one, then let someone else who can care for the animal take them. It really disturbs me how people can harm a helpless animal and just not care what they are doing to the animal.It often makes them very fearful of people as well. Unfortunately, I dont think the laws are very strict and people often get a slap on the wrist for this sort of thing. I wish people would get steeper punishments for animal abuse, because I think it's wrong to abuse animals that can't even defend themselves. I understand some people just dont like animals, but I think there is no justification for animal abuse.

But it could also be that some people abuse animals as a means to vent out their frustration / stress. So rather than attacking other people they harm animals instead. You can think of it as a solution where one tries to quit smoking cigarettes by smoking cigars.

Doesn't stop them from having an empathy disorder in the first place. If I had my way, these people would be removed from society. I know, lack of empathy from myself, but these people are diseased and unfixable to begin with, so society might as well cut our losses.

But it could also be that some people abuse animals as a means to vent out their frustration / stress. So rather than attacking other people they harm animals instead. You can think of it as a solution where one tries to quit smoking cigarettes by smoking cigars.

That still is no excuse. It's still abuse and harming a creature that can't defend itself. They dont understand why they are being hurt and certainly do not deserve to be harmed just because some person is stressed or frustrated. There are ways to do that without harming living creatures.

I think it's absolutely sickening, especially when it's someone's own pet. That's a part of your family. Why did you even get it if you're going to just beat it up? That translates to me as buying your own torture victim.

That still is no excuse. It's still abuse and harming a creature that can't defend itself. They dont understand why they are being hurt and certainly do not deserve to be harmed just because some person is stressed or frustrated. There are ways to do that without harming living creatures.

Granted that I tend to play wrestle with my dog, because he enjoys it, and a darker side of my brain wants to me to fight feral cats and dogs to the death, but I will always fight that feeling out of my mind, because I really don't want to kill an animal with my barehands. Animal cruelty in general makes me wonder why do these people want pets in the first place.

They're disgusting people, pure and simple. Convict them, give them five years minimum, that's it. People who can do that to animals need to be punished a whole lot more by the law than what they are currently being subject to, they're animals who don't understand why they're being tortured in the first place and that itself is just pure evil. Five years minimum.

Here's a reply to my online Philosophy 12U teacher (when I was doing the course online from September 2012-January 2013):

Quote:

I believe that fundamentally, animals were created in order to serve human purposes; however, from my comprehension of Genesis 1:26, we have a responsibility to care for those animals and to treat them well lest commit an immoral act. Though I do not believe that animals are conscious of their own being (as I’ve expressed before and as is argued by Buddhists and Descartes), I do believe that we have a level of moral obligation towards them as they remain living, feeling beings. Furthermore, similar to the animal inferiority argument, I feel that we are superior to animals in that we are more intelligent, abstract, developed, and have more elaborate talents and characteristics than what our animal companions appear to possess. This only further supports my belief that as we are more mentally capable than animals, we are required to take care of them and treat them with dignity and respect as fellow creations.
Simply put, we owe them kindness and consideration because we have the capability to treat them that way. In order to prove our superiority to ourselves, we must first overcome the egotism of being thought as superior in the first place, regardless evidence that supports it. This can be said of other things as well, such as in the case of Bill Gates who dresses middle-class and treats everyone with respect regardless civil stature. Although he is rich, he does not use it as an excuse to flaunt his wealth or waste money; rather, he funds global operations such as the Red Cross and AIDS Research in order to help the less fortunate. The same can be said for humans in relation to animals in that though we are of superior intellect, that does not mean we owe animals any less consideration than we would give our own species.
Kant best explains my perception of animals. Lacking a conscious, they are creations based on instincts rather than rationalism. They lack the capability to understand the consequences of an action as well as the ability to understand what is socially acceptable and what is not. Because they lack the ability to rationalize their behaviour, the actions of an animal cannot be considered bad or good, moral or immoral. Animals simply act as nature intended, whether it is killing other animals, attacking one another, etc. I do believe, however, that animals have souls (contrary to Buddhist beliefs), and I do believe that animals are capable of acting, unintentionally or intentionally, in good faith whether they understand their actions or not. For example, an animal that appears to be comforting another animal or a human, or an animal that “adopts” a baby animal of the same or another species. There’s an interesting video on YouTube of a lion that adopts and protects a baby sheep; though the lion might not understand that this act is “good” (in human perspective, anyway), it behaves this way outside of instinctual norms. Animals are then not restricted by instincts at all given moments and may be able to understand some ideas.
What I find interesting is that once an animal infringes on a human’s right or property, they suddenly become part of the moral society in limited terms. A pack of wolves that kills and eats a farmer’s cow in order to stay alive during winter is suddenly prone to being “punished” by either being trapped or displaced, or by being poisoned by the farmer himself. They become subjected to the human concept of punishment and consequence regardless the animals’ inability to understand that what they did was considered “bad” or “stealing” in human society. Is this not then a double-standard where animals can be punished for acting “immorally” as per human standards, but do not have the right to be treated morally or with consideration in general? Though the animal’s behaviour was both natural and instinctual, humans refuse to consider this once their own property has been violated in some way. Is that not wrong of us, to hold animals to our moral standards but not include them in our moral community in all circumstances? In our own societies, double-standards are discouraged i.e. the use of the “N” word between black individuals is OK but it is wrong for other ethnicities to address them as such – so why would it be acceptable to propose a double-standard on animals?
In conclusion, it is in my belief that yes, animals may be used to serve human purposes as long as they are treated properly and do not suffer unduly in the process; however, this is based on a combination of a softened version of the Divine Command Theory, Kantian Ethics, and the idea that to behave cruelly to animals is, in itself, an immoral act that is thus ethically unacceptable. I also agree that in some cases, as with an infestation of rats which may cause illness amongst humans, it is morally acceptable to kill animals of any sort, as per Peter Singer’s utilitarian hierarchy concept. I do not believe, as per the Buddhist’s, that animals lack a soul, or that our intellectual superiority denies moral rights to animals, as per the Animal Inferiority theory. We have an obligation to treat animals with a respect; it is our duty to care for them and to not improperly benefit from their existence. All measures must be taken in order to assure that the welfare of the animals which are used or will be used for human purposes will be taken into consideration as to not cause unneeded suffering. Whether they have a conscious or method of reason is irrelevant; they ultimately feel, and that is the deciding factor in whether or not they deserve to be treated well.

I feel Canada needs harsher punishments for the mistreatment of animals. It's one of the first signs of a serial killer, of someone who has a power complex and who needs to take it out on defenseless beings who are caged or trapped in a confined space (i.e. a room). The government needs to take it more seriously, because although at first it's "just" animals, it can quickly escalate into human victims. Regardless even that, the government should be worrking harder to protect animals in the first place, even if it may not escalate that far.

I find people that harms helpless animals pretty sick. They can either be disturbed people who can't take out their anger on the people harming them, people that enjoys seeing animals getting tortured or the worst case, future serial killers since most of them starts off by killing animals. People that steals from stores can get a bigger sentence than people that abuse animals, which I think is not right.

If I see someone abusing a helpless animal I would probably send them close to their deathbed just because killing those persons would be illegal. I really hate animal cruelty.

My belief is that there are two categories under which animals should be afforded protections under the law. The first are wild animals, which should be treated as resources. The second are pets, which should be treated as property. Neither should be abused without justification because the former have some degree of economic or environmental value and the latter have sentimental value. I do believe it is acceptable to harm a wild animal for reasons such as (but not limited to) defense of human life, research, or better quality of life, as these outweigh the justifications for not harming them. However, I believe it is only acceptable to harm a pet to protect human life.

With regards to the animal rights movement, take a look at this. This happened today. This is what many animal rights activists believe: that it is perfectly acceptable to "liberate" animals at whatever cost. This sort of action is outright evil. These types cause significant harm to people and hold back scientific progress (medical progress, no less) out of some misguided sense of justice. The idea that animals deserve the same protections as humans is, at best, flawed and not particularly helpful. However, the way these radicals understand it is outright malignant. Their actions cause real and permanent harm to people everywhere. Those who espouse this belief in this way are either naive and have failed to recognize the consequences of it, in which case they should be made to understand those consequences, or are aware of the consequences, in which case they should be scorned for knowingly advocating or perpetuating human suffering. These so-called "activists" jeopardize scientific progress and human well-being and it is our duty to challenge them and their faulty ideals whenever and wherever they surface.

"The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all." - H. L. Mencken, unsourced

"There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there always has been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'"- Isaac Asimov, Column in Newsweek (21 January 1980) [source]

I hate it, with an utter passion. You know what is also complete BS, BSL Breed Specific Legislation. Meaning if they choose to ban a breed of dog they can. I own an American PitBull Terrier, and when people see me with my dog I'm treated as if I'm a monster....I'm a F$&%ing pokemon nerd....This ties in because a very BRUTAL form of animal abuse has such a light punishment. Dog fighting, I've seen documentaries on it and its....words can't describe it, they would kill the dogs in most brutal forms for loosing or let them bleed out in the pit alone, simply for losing a fight that its "owner" told him to do, the dog wants to please his "owner" and dies a brutal death by the hands of the "owner". The bonds these dogs some how have with these scum of the earth is amazing, I've seen a dog wag his tail and jump around and beg for his "owners" attention before a fight. The dog loses and his hooked up to wires and then shocked to death.I'm sorry but this may come off as extreme but if you're willing to do that to animals you shouldn't be free and I don't want to pay to keep you alive.

__________________

"When it comes time to die, be not like those whose hearts are filled with the fear of death, so when their time comes they weep and pray for a little more time to live their lives over again in a different way. Sing your death song, and die like a hero going home." - Chief Aupumut in 1725, Mohican.

My belief is that there are two categories under which animals should be afforded protections under the law. The first are wild animals, which should be treated as resources. The second are pets, which should be treated as property. Neither should be abused without justification because the former have some degree of economic or environmental value and the latter have sentimental value. I do believe it is acceptable to harm a wild animal for reasons such as (but not limited to) defense of human life, research, or better quality of life, as these outweigh the justifications for not harming them. However, I believe it is only acceptable to harm a pet to protect human life.

With regards to the animal rights movement, take a look at this. This happened today. This is what many animal rights activists believe: that it is perfectly acceptable to "liberate" animals at whatever cost. This sort of action is outright evil. These types cause significant harm to people and hold back scientific progress (medical progress, no less) out of some misguided sense of justice. The idea that animals deserve the same protections as humans is, at best, flawed and not particularly helpful. However, the way these radicals understand it is outright malignant. Their actions cause real and permanent harm to people everywhere. Those who espouse this belief in this way are either naive and have failed to recognize the consequences of it, in which case they should be made to understand those consequences, or are aware of the consequences, in which case they should be scorned for knowingly advocating or perpetuating human suffering. These so-called "activists" jeopardize scientific progress and human well-being and it is our duty to challenge them and their faulty ideals whenever and wherever they surface.

I agree with the bulk of this post, but it does raise some valid questions in regards to domesticated category of animal protection. If these animals are purely chattel, what legal basis would prevent me from kicking my dog, given that my dog is restrained from other humans, let's say kept in a basement, so it's change in temperament would not affect other humans. Further, if I starve a dog, it will likely be weak, posing little threat to other humans. If I have a treasured Picasso painting that I own, I am allowed to poke holes in it or burn it as long as it doesn't harm other humans. So, it is a tough distinction to make if we treat domesticated animals and other forms of chattel and I am not sure that sentimentality is enough. As explained, a Picasso painting is more revered than any given animal; am I allowed to burn it, despite the sentimental pain it would cause others? I would hope I would have the right.

So, perhaps, all animals should be treated as publicly-owned resources. The laws by which distinguish which type of resources one can control but not as private property. Therefore, the dog I "own" would actually be the property of the society and its rules, I am merely a designated authority to the animal as any principal is to a public school or police chief is to a state police office, they don't own it, but exercise authority over it. I am responsible for carrying out the duties of protecting it, an article of public property, and therefore, other people do not have authoritative rights over my animal, I do, though, the state has the ability whether to afford or terminate those authoritative rights as deemed necessary. If the state decides that bodily harm or inadequate attention to sustenance is causation for a termination of my authority to supervise the article of public property in addition to legal retribution for breaching my duty to protect public property, then I would obviously be deterred to do so.

My belief is that there are two categories under which animals should be afforded protections under the law. The first are wild animals, which should be treated as resources. The second are pets, which should be treated as property. Neither should be abused without justification because the former have some degree of economic or environmental value and the latter have sentimental value. I do believe it is acceptable to harm a wild animal for reasons such as (but not limited to) defense of human life, research, or better quality of life, as these outweigh the justifications for not harming them. However, I believe it is only acceptable to harm a pet to protect human life.

With regards to the animal rights movement, take a look at this. This happened today. This is what many animal rights activists believe: that it is perfectly acceptable to "liberate" animals at whatever cost. This sort of action is outright evil. These types cause significant harm to people and hold back scientific progress (medical progress, no less) out of some misguided sense of justice. The idea that animals deserve the same protections as humans is, at best, flawed and not particularly helpful. However, the way these radicals understand it is outright malignant. Their actions cause real and permanent harm to people everywhere. Those who espouse this belief in this way are either naive and have failed to recognize the consequences of it, in which case they should be made to understand those consequences, or are aware of the consequences, in which case they should be scorned for knowingly advocating or perpetuating human suffering. These so-called "activists" jeopardize scientific progress and human well-being and it is our duty to challenge them and their faulty ideals whenever and wherever they surface.

Sorry but I do not agree with this. I do not view animals as "property" or "resources". They are not just bags of bones, they are living things like we are. I dont agree with them being cast aside as things people own or tools to use. I dont really believe I own my cat. I prefer to think of myself more as a guardian to her, a caretaker and companion. She is not just another thing I own. She's a living creature with a personality, maybe not like a person's but she has one and is unique. I also dont agree with harming them senselessly. Viewing them as property encourages this treatment of them in my opinion. I think that' wrong.

True yet this also implies that plants (technically, they are alive) should be given the same respect as those to a human and, by extension, those who abuse, and I use the this term loosely, plants should be punished with the same degree of punishment as a human abuser would receive. That's not entirely plausible now, is it? But let's not delve into that as it is a different topic all in itself.

I agree with twocows, for the most part. I don't think that those animal rights activist jeopardize scientific advancement. Delay it, maybe, but not entirely jeopardize. However, it still poses a significant harm. The old proverb, "better late than never," does not help, either. Besides, even if they get what they want, animal abuse would never cease. Throughout the course of human history, what is lost is actually continued; one way or another. Now I'm not saying that there is no way to stop this, I'm sure there is. I think Fennekin's proposal is most promising and it only applies to house pets and farm animals at most, which should be sufficient. People should just leave wild animals alone, period.

"The French have already discovered that the blackness of the skin is no reason why a human being should be abandoned without redress to the caprice of a tormentor [see Louis XIV's Code Noir]... What else is it that should trace the insuperable line? Is it the faculty of reason, or, perhaps, the faculty of discourse? But a full-grown horse or dog is beyond comparison a more rational, as well as a more conversable animal, than an infant of a day, or a week, or even a month, old. But suppose the case were otherwise, what would it avail? The question is not Can they reason? nor, Can they talk? but, Can they suffer?"
~Jeremy Bentham

I am staunchly against animal cruelty. People who commit such acts upon animals are repugnant individuals and vile to commit such an act on a living organism that is practically defenceless. It's sickening sadism and abuse of power against the powerless, and people who intentionally commit such acts, for no benefit, can only do so because of their own insecurity and lust for dominance. These kind of people are a menace to not only the animals they hurt, but to anyone in society is defenceless, and must be regarded as such. These people could not possibly be trusted with kids, with elderly, or anyone physically disabled. Willing cruelty towards animals is sickening and a cowardly form of terror on those who cannot fight back.

My stance on animal testing is simple. It's a necessary evil, because we haven't yet developed the means to do these same experiments without the need for living organisms, but we should invest in research to make that ideal reality. I would be inclined to disagree with the typical straw animal rights activist who'd go about his daily life breaking into laboratories to vandalise the place and free all the animals, but for cosmetic testing, I feel that some justice has been done. Medicinal experimentation is acceptable, cosmetic experimentation is unforgiveable, and akin to the thousands of factory farms. In most cases medicinal researchers who experiment on animals take great caution in ensuring the comfort of the animal. It is wrongful to think that the people who have to perform the experiments do so with the same kind of sadism as the abusive man who lets his dog starve. They might actually love the animal, even feel sorry for causing it harm, for they are not, like him, inherently malignant abusers of power.

We must recognise, as a human species that we share this planet with millions of other types of lifeforms, and each hold their own individual interests. We never lived in a world that was made to formfit to our needs and no animal is inherently made to serve our needs. We are a species that evolved through adaptation, in a world that did not adapt to us. And now, at our heighest point, we've come to discover that we -can- make the world adapt to us, and the consequences have been horrifying. Never before did man eat so much meat, more than even is necessary to live a healthy life. More animals than ever are driven out of their homes, and are forced to adapt to us, a species that has no wish to adapt itself. We have ourselves, and a select group of animals we've deemed acceptable to take into our lives, and all other animals are resources, or eye candy for our zoos. Animals close to 10 billion are slaughtered every year in the USA alone. Meat production in the USA is comparable in size to that of the entirity of Africa. It is neither necessary, nor explicitly healthy to consume meat every day and historically, people didn't eat it everyday. We humans are omnivores, and even as a vegetarian I recognise that, and that my full abstention from meat-eating is purely personal, and should stay that way. However, we devour it like carnivores. Our unsustainable consumption has led to the most unbearable conditions in which our animals are kept. Factory farms are the very essence of what is wrong with the contemporary views on animal rights.

__________________

RP's I am in:
Pokemon: Journeys Through Novia - Glyn Schaffer

"And they tell me there are people who are normal, but I don't know what they look like because I've never met one. And neither have you, so why not compare yourself to real people instead?"
"Three lives of a gamer: the first'll be your best, because you can always restart if it isn't; the second pales in comparison, and the game will cheat you out; but the third one's going to be better, because it gets do or die from then."

True yet this also implies that plants (technically, they are alive) should be given the same respect as those to a human and, by extension, those who abuse, and I use the this term loosely, plants should be punished with the same degree of punishment as a human abuser would receive. That's not entirely plausible now, is it? But let's not delve into that as it is a different topic all in itself.

True, But you call still be respectful, Like when the Natives killed an animal they respected it and honored it by not letting its loss of life go to waste by using every part of it. Since I'm half Sioux i was raised to ALWAYS respect animals because we are all here sharing the planet.I eat meat but I'm very thankful to the cows. There are just some people who have no respect for other forms of life, I've seen people who would purposely run over animals if they were walking across the road. A big example is dog fighting, pitting dogs against each other to the death, because even if the dog doesn't die in the ring he is killed(very brutally) for simply losing. They do it for money but also for the "enjoyment"

We must recognise, as a human species that we share this planet with millions of other types of lifeforms, and each hold their own individual interests. We never lived in a world that was made to formfit to our needs and no animal is inherently made to serve our needs. We are a species that evolved through adaptation, in a world that did not adapt to us. And now, at our heighest point, we've come to discover that we -can- make the world adapt to us, and the consequences have been horrifying. Never before did man eat so much meat, more than even is necessary to live a healthy life. More animals than ever are driven out of their homes, and are forced to adapt to us, a species that has no wish to adapt itself. We have ourselves, and a select group of animals we've deemed acceptable to take into our lives, and all other animals are resources, or eye candy for our zoos. Animals close to 10 billion are slaughtered every year in the USA alone. Meat production in the USA is comparable in size to that of the entirity of Africa. It is neither necessary, nor explicitly healthy to consume meat every day and historically, people didn't eat it everyday. We humans are omnivores, and even as a vegetarian I recognise that, and that my full abstention from meat-eating is purely personal, and should stay that way. However, we devour it like carnivores. Our unsustainable consumption has led to the most unbearable conditions in which our animals are kept. Factory farms are the very essence of what is wrong with the contemporary views on animal rights.

Why is it wrong inherently to cause animals pain when it is necessary for food production. The higher the US output of meat products, the cheaper the prices, and the fewer people who go hungry and more money for other living expenses. Actually, meat consumption to grain consumption is DOWN. More people are getting their calories from grain-based products despite the relatively recent introduction of grains in diet; thus, many people develop diabetes, Alzheimer's (type 3 diabetes) and celiac disease, just to name a few, due to the inefficiency of grain digestion for lack of time in the adaptation of our genes.

Meat, in hunting and gathering societies of the past, constituted 45-65 percent of their daily calories depending on which region we are talking about. It is much more difficult to sustain living on vegetables alone, because of the amount needed in order for sustenance (potatoes and other roots and legumes are not applicable, we only recently began eating those). Therefore, humans have more evolved genetics for meat digestion and plant-based foods health-wise and meat digestion is a viable supplement in a diet for the lack of caloric nutrients from vegetables alone, which is possible, but requires mass consumption and production. Though, not because of animal suffering, we should make reforms in order to prevent antibiotic and hormone use in slaughtered cattle in order to bolster human health and reduce health costs.

Animals eat each other every day. They tear into each others eyes and throat, before moving on to slaughter their victim's family and homes. Are these animals implementing animal cruelty? Yes, they are, but animal cruelty, as far as non-domesticated animals go, is not inherently wrong. Nor is it when a species goes extinct. It is what it is, natural selection; many animals are OVERPOWERED and DEFENSELESS and protecting them is not a necessary discourse, unless it serves man's needs. Man should do whatever is in his power to improve his life and ensure not only his existence but his thriving existence.

Sorry, Fenneking, I see that as cruel.People try and save endangered species because they shouldnt just be allowed to go extinct. I think that attitude is just cruel. Animals should not just be caused pain and suffering, they dont understand. They havent done anything to people. They just want to live as we do. I honestly think most animals ought to be left alone. If they need help, they should be helped as much as we can but honestly unless its absolutely nessesary to harm/kill an animal, it's better to just leave them be. I dont believe in merciless harming of other creatures, that dosent sit right with me.

There is probably a reason why people are eating less meat, and they shouldnt be forced to eat more if they dont wish to. I dont eat much meat, because I dont need to, sometimes I just prefer not to and that is ok. I can eat what I please and so can others.

Sorry, Fenneking, I see that as cruel.People try and save endangered species because they shouldnt just be allowed to go extinct. I think that attitude is just cruel. Animals should not just be caused pain and suffering, they dont understand. They havent done anything to people. They just want to live as we do. I honestly think most animals ought to be left alone. If they need help, they should be helped as much as we can but honestly unless its absolutely nessesary to harm/kill an animal, it's better to just leave them be. I dont believe in merciless harming of other creatures, that dosent sit right with me.

There is probably a reason why people are eating less meat, and they shouldnt be forced to eat more if they dont wish to. I dont eat much meat, because I dont need to, sometimes I just prefer not to and that is ok. I can eat what I please and so can others.

Can you justify why we have a duty to not let a given species go extinct? Extinction is a natural process which has occurred since the beginning of time, long before humans existed. Extinction is necessary for other species to emerge and thrive. Cost to protect one species could is money taken away from the betterment of human society, and therefore diminishes our quality of life, especially to those that are struggling for sustenance.

Animals don't understand pain and suffering? They certainly do. It's a physiological response that motivates them to do that which will aid in their survival, they actually understand pain better than we do in that most primitive sense. Pain, to them, is a necessary defense mechanism.

People should not be forced to eat meat, and I never implied so. People are eating less meat because of consumerism, it's cheaper to produce chemically-altered grain products than it is to supply plant and meat based products, though at a long-term price. Long-term, one is better served to eat meat and plant products than they are to eat grains, which have not fully integrated into our digestion evolution as has meat. Since health care costs for obesity (therefore heart disease and stroke), diabetes (therefore heart disease and stroke), celiac disease, alzheimers are linked to insulin sensitivity and consumption of gluten/grains, people should not be eating chemically processed grains (unless you are of certain Eastern Dissent and have evolved to digest certain non-processed grains). Thus, one does not need meat, simply it is affordable to those who exercise healthy eating of meat and plant based foods, and need a supplement to plants. If you can afford to eat only plant-based food, more power to you. Humans should not eat as they please, since their individual behavior affects all of society in health costs, and early loss of life (taxpayers made an investment in education, etc.) Doing that in which is against the betterment of human life is against our natural order, which is to maintain substance and improve quality of life of mankind.

Our actions and behaviors should not be motivated on mere arbitrary sentiments that have no logical basis, there needs to be a logical basis that demonstrates how a behavior does or does not help the human race and the societies we live in; otherwise, we could be a detriment to mankind - the most ultimate evil acting against a natural order that all species prescribe to.

Why is it wrong inherently to cause animals pain when it is necessary for food production. The higher the US output of meat products, the cheaper the prices, and the fewer people who go hungry and more money for other living expenses. Actually, meat consumption to grain consumption is DOWN. More people are getting their calories from grain-based products despite the relatively recent introduction of grains in diet; thus, many people develop diabetes, Alzheimer's (type 3 diabetes) and celiac disease, just to name a few, due to the inefficiency of grain digestion for lack of time in the adaptation of our genes.

Meat, in hunting and gathering societies of the past, constituted 45-65 percent of their daily calories depending on which region we are talking about. It is much more difficult to sustain living on vegetables alone, because of the amount needed in order for sustenance (potatoes and other roots and legumes are not applicable, we only recently began eating those). Therefore, humans have more evolved genetics for meat digestion and plant-based foods health-wise and meat digestion is a viable supplement in a diet for the lack of caloric nutrients from vegetables alone, which is possible, but requires mass consumption and production. Though, not because of animal suffering, we should make reforms in order to prevent antibiotic and hormone use in slaughtered cattle in order to bolster human health and reduce health costs.

Animals eat each other every day. They tear into each others eyes and throat, before moving on to slaughter their victim's family and homes. Are these animals implementing animal cruelty? Yes, they are, but animal cruelty, as far as non-domesticated animals go, is not inherently wrong. Nor is it when a species goes extinct. It is what it is, natural selection; many animals are OVERPOWERED and DEFENSELESS and protecting them is not a necessary discourse, unless it serves man's needs. Man should do whatever is in his power to improve his life and ensure not only his existence but his thriving existence.

Personally, I find the conditions under which animals are killed in nature less abhorrent than the sufferable conditions under which they are kept in factory farms. I don't know how much you've seen of what happens there, but it's unnecessary and cruel. There are animals that are born with a roof over their heads and don't even get to see daylight. The artificial buzzing light is the only sun that exists for many animals that die there, and many of them do die, before even getting to the slaughterhouses, of diseases, of bones that break because they've gone brittle. The average time for a lion to kill a prey is somewhere around 5 minutes, more or less, if I am to believe footage times of documentaries. The average time for a human to kill his prey depends on where you say the killing process begins, which could be more or less debated over. If we say it occurs right from the time we start to hurt the animal, then we can say it happens from birth with a lot of animals, until they're ready to be slaughtered. In any way, it's more cruel than a lion killing a zebra.

While you have said that a high percentage of the paleolithic diet consisted of animal, you've failed to add to this that most of the calories came from seafoods, while the majority of the animals that we see are consumed today in the US are those of mammals and birds, primarily chicken, pork, and beef. Furthermore, the range in percentage of consumption of calories is far more diverse, even in paleolithic times, than you've represented. The Gwi people, who live in Southern Africa consumed only about 25% animal calories in their diet, and some inuit people have a percentage as high as 99% here.

Humans have adapted to their surroundings. People who live in polar regions simply need to eat lots of calories from animals because almost nothing in the form of plant life grows there. The Gwi in Southern Africa had much less animal calories to eat, but the general diet was still healthy. If a European were to have 99% of his calories consist of meat, we'd call him unhealthy, the people up north would disagree.

Meat consumption by itself is alright and natural, but where should we cap it? The Average Chinese used to consume 13 kilogrammes of meat on average in 1982, and the Chinese called beef millionaire's meat, because meat was a luxury product, something for special occasions. Today, it's somewhere up in the 40s, and it's still lower than the USA. Norwegians consume around 55 kilogrammes of meat yearly. Is 90 kilogrammes of meat eating yearly necessary to be healthy as an American? Unlikely. There are many cultures, even today, that do not consume meat in their everyday diet, or people who find their calories from seafood like from clams, shrimp, fish. One diet is not necessarily intrinsically healthier than the other, and it lies deep in the genetic differences between people, and we cannot exactly say that one diet is healthy for all. In fact, you made a very good argument with the grains, and the same argument can be applied for milk drinking, with the majority of the Asian populace being lactose intolerant, but plant-derived works, and there are many ethnic groups that could survive on a healthy diet of "meat once a week is totally fine".

__________________

RP's I am in:
Pokemon: Journeys Through Novia - Glyn Schaffer

"And they tell me there are people who are normal, but I don't know what they look like because I've never met one. And neither have you, so why not compare yourself to real people instead?"
"Three lives of a gamer: the first'll be your best, because you can always restart if it isn't; the second pales in comparison, and the game will cheat you out; but the third one's going to be better, because it gets do or die from then."

The PokéCommunity

Meta

Pokémon characters and images belong to The Pokémon Company International and Nintendo. This website is in no way affiliated with or endorsed by Nintendo, Creatures, GAMEFREAK, or The Pokémon Company International. We just love Pokémon.